LATE SMT. IRAWWA BASAYYA HIREMATH V. CHIEF COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX

WP/106255/2023

AI Insights

The case involves a writ petition filed by Shri. Sachidanand B. Hiremath, the legal heir of Late Smt. Irwawwa Basayya Hiremath, against the Chief Commissioner of Income Tax, Bengaluru-1, and other income tax authorities. The petitioner sought to quash an order under Section 119(2)(b) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, which rejected their appeal for a tax refund due to the appeal being filed after the stipulated period of limitation. The petitioner argued that the merits of the case were not considered, and the land for which compensation was received was agricultural, thus eligible for a refund. The court found that the authority had not considered the merits of the case and only focused on the procedural aspect of the delay, leading to the decision to set aside the previous order and remit the case for a substantive review.

• Counselvise Citation: [2023] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 748321 (HC-KARNATAKA)
• Appeal Type: Others
• Pronouncement Date: 15-12-2023
• Assessment Year: misc
• Laws Referred To: Income Tax Act, 1961
• Result in Favour of: Others
• Court: HIGH COURT
• Department Lawyers: Y V RAVIRAJ
• Assessee Lawyers: ASHOK KULKARNI
• Keywords: Agricultural land compensation; Condonation of delay; Refund of Tax; Writ of Certiorari; Writ of Mandamus
• Section: 119(2)(b); 226; 227

Judgement Text

" - 1 - NC: 2023:KHC-D:14725 WP No. 106255 of 2023 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD BENCH DATED THIS THE 15TH DAY OF DECEMBER, 2023 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE ANANT RAMANATH HEGDE WRIT PETITION NO. 106255 OF 2023 (T-IT) BETWEEN: LATE SMT. IRAWWA BASAYYA HIREMATH BHARIDEVARAKOPPA, HUBLI DHARWAD ROAD, HUBLI, DHARWAD-580025. BY LEGAL HEIR SHRI. SACHIDANAND B. HIREMATH SON OF LATE SMT. IRAWWA BASAYYA HIREMATH AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS. …PETITIONER (BY SRI. ASHOK A. KULKARNI, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. CHIEF COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, BENGALURU-1, CR BUILDING, QUEENS ROAD, BENGALURU, KARNATAKA-560001. 2. PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX NAVANAGAR, HUBBALLI-580025. 3. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1(1) NAVANAGAR, HUBBALLI-580025. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. Y. V. RAVIRAJ, ADVOCTE FOR RESPONDENT NO. 1 TO 3) THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 & 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO QUASH BY A WRIT OF CERTIORARI OR A DIRECTION IN THE NATURE OF CERTIORARI, THE ORDER U/S 119(2)(B) OF THE ACT BEARING NO. F.NO. COND.119(2)(B)/IRAWWA/CCIT/BNG-1/2023-24/818 DATED 03.07.2023 PASSED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT IN ANNEXURE-C, FOR BEING ILLEGAL, UNLAWFUL, EXCEEDING JURISDICTION AND VIOLATIVE OF THE PRINCIPLES OF NATURAL JUSTICE AND ISSUE A WRIT OF MANDAMUS OR ANY OTHER WRIT OR DIRECTION TO THE 3RD RESPONDENT TO TAKE THE RETURN OF INCOME FILED ON 15.07.2019 ON RECORD AND TO PASS APPROPRIATE ORDER IN MOHANKUMAR B SHELAR Digitally signed by MOHANKUMAR B SHELAR Date: 2023.12.19 12:22:24 +0530 - 2 - NC: 2023:KHC-D:14725 WP No. 106255 of 2023 ACCORDANCE WITH LAW AND ISSUE A WRIT OF MANDAMUS OR A DIRECTION IN THE NATURE OF MANDAMUS TO THE 3RD RESPONDENT, FOR GRANT OF REFUND AMOUNTING TO RS. 14,75,850/- ALONG WITH APPLICABLE INTEREST WITHIN SUCH TIME AS THIS HON’BLE COURT MAY DEEM FIT. THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR FINAL HEARING, THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING: ORDER 1. Heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner as well as the learned advocate appearing for the respondents. 2. In terms of the order dated 03.07.2023 marked at Annexure-C passed under Section 119(2)(b) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, the Commissioner of Income Tax has rejected the appeal filed by the petitioner. 3. Admittedly, appeal was filed after the stipulated period of limitation. The application is dismissed on the premise that the petitioner is not entitled to refund of tax deducted. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that in case appeal is to be rejected on merits, it is to be considered on merits. Without considering the claim of the - 3 - NC: 2023:KHC-D:14725 WP No. 106255 of 2023 petitioner on merits, it cannot be held that the petitioner is not entitled to refund of tax deducted at source in respect of compensation paid for acquired land of the petitioner, which was an agricultural land. The Authority has concluded that the petitioner is not entitled to refund and thereby rejected the application for condonation of delay. 5. Learned counsel for the respondents Sri.Y.V.Raviraj would defend the impugned order, on the premise that the petitioner is not entitled to refund. 6. This Court has considered the contentions raised at the bar. 7. After going through the order, it is apparent that the Authority has rejected the application for condonation of delay, on the premise that the petitioner has no case on merit and the petitioner’s case on merit is not considered at all. Whether the land belonging to the petitioner, which was acquired, for which compensation is - 4 - NC: 2023:KHC-D:14725 WP No. 106255 of 2023 said to have been paid is agricultural or non-agricultural land, is not considered by the Commissioner. 8. Under these circumstances, the order rejecting the application for condonation of delay is set aside. Delay is condoned. Matter is remitted to the Assessing Authority for consideration of petitioner’s application for refund of tax deducted at source on merit. 9. It is further made clear that nothing is expressed on the merits of the case. 10. All issues, expect limitation, is kept open. Sd/- JUDGE KGK/ct-an List No.: 1 Sl No.: 71 "